06AMMAN327

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 000327

SIPDIS

STATE FOR NEA/ARN, NEA/PA, NEA/AIA, INR/NESA, R/MR,

I/GNEA, B/BXN , B/BRN, NEA/PPD, NEA/IPA FOR ALTERMAN

USAID/ANE/MEA

LONDON FOR TSOU

E.O. 12958: N/A

TAGS: KMDR JO

SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON IRAN

Summary

— Jordanian local newspapers over the past few days,

January 16-18, focused on a variety of local and
regional developments. On the local front, papers
highlighted the rejection of the draft income tax law
by both the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament. On
the regional front and in addition to reports on
developments in Iraq, the Palestinian Territories, and
Lebanon, papers focused on Iran's nuclear issue.

Editorial Commentary

— "Iran and the double standards"

Daily columnist Samih Ma ' aytah writes on the back page
of independent Arabic daily Al-Ghad (01/16): "One

cannot read the events in the region and the
international intervention in isolation from Israel's
interests and calculations, which are based on
worrying about any political, military, or economic
power that could threaten the security of this entity.

Iran may be the greatest beneficiary from Iraq's
occupation, the fall of the regime, and the
disintegration of the Iraqi state. After all, it got
rid of the enemy that broke the force of the
revolution and came to have political, security, and
ideological influence in the Iraqi arena. In its joy
at these gains, the government of Iran purposefully
disregarded the fact that what is going on in Iraq
actually serves part of the Zionist scheme and
Israel's interests and security formula and that the
disintegration of the Iraqi state had achieved major
objectives of the Zionist entity. . Tehran dealt with
what is happening on its borders from the perspective
of its own limited interests, and thus accepted and
supported its friends in Iraq in their alliance with
the U.S. administration in the military and political
process. The pragmatic leadership of Iran probably
thought that its unspoken alliance with Washington
would be in the interest of its nuclear file, but it
overlooked a very important matter, namely that Israel
and Washington are not going to be willing to give any
party the opportunity to own anything that would cause
worry for Israel.. Iran, which ignored Israel's
presence and the process of legitimizing Iraq's
occupation but remembered that presence when it came
to Iranian issues, shows not only excessive pragmatism
but also wrong and very shallow calculations. Israel,
which instigated and contributed to the arrival of
armies into Iraq, is the same Israel that does not
want Iran to own weapons that would threaten its
security. Iran, during the Iraq occupation, adopted
an approach based on interests, but when the tough got
going against it, it resorted to ideological language,
and the Iranian President spoke to the nation in the
language of rebels and radicals. Iran should have
used this language and talk of Israel's danger during
the Iraq occupation war. What it did has robbed its
revolutionary rhetoric from all value and
credibility.. No Arab or Muslim can accept that any
part of the nation be targeted, but he will not accept
to be the victim of regimes jumping from camp to
another. Iran, which favored its own interests during
the Iraq war, cannot ask the people to be part of the
revolutionary guard and the Tehran's masses."

— "Iran's regional ace cards: will they prevent its
domestication? ”

Columnist Khairallah Khairallah writes on the op-ed
page of independent Arabic daily Al-Ghad (01/18):

"What could push Iran into a confrontation with the
international community over its nuclear program? The
answer lies in that the Iranian regime found that it
has sufficient pressure cards to allow it to go very
far in this confrontation, and the regime believes
that it could come out victorious at the other end . .

Since India and Pakistan have the nuclear bomb, then
why shouldn't Iran? Why does the world accept India

and Pakistan as two nuclear powers but not Iran?
Moreover, why does the world keep quiet about the fact
that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades and
refuses to submit to any inspections? First of all,
one cannot draw a comparison between Iran on one hand
and India and Pakistan on the other. This is for a
very simple reason. India has had the bomb with the
support of the former Soviet Union that wanted to
achieve a balance with China, and Pakistan owned the
bomb with Chinese support also in order to create a
balance with India. . As for Israel, it came to own
nuclear weapons by a European decision which then
became an accepted worldwide decision.. For Iran to
become a nuclear power would be different, not because
Iran as it stands today is more dangerous than Israel,
but because Iran has managed, over the past few years,
to benefit the most from the American war on terrorism
and to strengthen its influence on various fronts,
thus serving an ideology that is only in Iran's
benefit.. Because of the American 'enemy' that turned
out to be working for Iran, intentionally or not, Iran
managed to get rid of the Taliban regime, its opponent
in Afghanistan, and have Iraq become a zone for its
influence. It also became apparent that redrawing the
map of the Middle East was also in Iran's favor first
and foremost.. A party that has all these regional
ace cards . seems to be capable of throwing to the
wind all international opposition to its nuclear
program. . It is not easy for the world to accept
Iran's nuclear program, but it is also difficult to
force Iran to give it up. . What to do with Iran? Is
it permissible for a country that has such ambitions
to enter the world of nuclear arms? The answer is
that it is not permissible, although it really up to
America and how far it is willing to go in getting rid
of the Iranian nuclear program."

— "The region on a hot plate"

Chief Editor Taher Udwan writes on the back-page of
independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm
(01/18): "The exploding crisis of the Iranian nuclear

issue threatens to drag the region into a serious
conflict that endangers regional security and
stability. . The new Iranian defiance and President
Ahmadina jad ' s remarks could give the neo-conservatives
in the United States opportunities for undertaking a
military escapade against Iran, just as it did in
Iraq, which would ignite the region and escalate the
armed struggle in Iraq to Palestine and all the way to
Syria and Lebanon. . An armed struggle between America
and Israel on one hand and Iran on the other, should
it happen, would take place on Arab lands, and this
calls for an Arab diplomacy and a united Arab stand
that would prevent it from happening and prevent Arab
land from becoming an arena for an armed international
conflict. The problem with the Iranian nuclear issue
is that it cannot be resolved with a pre-emptive
strike, as the neo-conservatives in Washington and the
Netanyahu-led Likud want, nor with an economic
embargo, but with the west (America and Europe)
returning to its senses and stopping their double
standards policy. The crisis is fabricated under the
illusion that Iran is seeking to own nuclear weapons,
just as the crisis of the Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction was fabricated."

— "The spectator"

Daily columnist Nahed Hattar writes on the back-page
of independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-
Yawm (01/18): "The main parties to the conflict, Iran

and Israel, are waging the same quagmire for reasons
and interests of their own that sometimes interconnect
with American reasons and interests.. There are some
who say that Arab nationalists must ally with Iran
against Israel. This is true if the alliance is
stemming from an independent Arab plan, because
otherwise we [Arabs] are just tools in a regional
struggle between two powers that look at the Arab
world as a field for influence and interests."

HALE